Talk:Killone Abbey

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Public right of way[edit]

There's been some bad faith edits by unregistered accounts (presumably the land owners) denying that there is public right of way to the abbey. Anyone can check the map on www.landdirect.ie to see that there is in fact a public right of way. Very disappointing to see someone try to take advantage of Wikipedia like this. One to watch out for. Missimack (talk) 13:01, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to have been addressed now. I spend a while on landdirect.ie earlier but couldn't find how to get a URL for a particular area/map. WikiAviator managed it, though! I have the page on my watchlist now, will watch out for future reversions by disgruntled landowners... ;-) BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:38, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The right of way you are referring to is not a public right of way — if you check the document you’ve referenced it says right of way, not public right of way. The right of way referenced is for one individual who was the previous owner (see attached). Anyone that has descendants buried in Killone can ask permission and make arrangements with the Estate owners. See image here: https://ibb.co/VT2M9Qx Kellycrak88 (talk) 15:14, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, whatever that is, it's not in any way a WP:RS. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 21:15, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
hi @Bastun They are the deeds of property (2016) not sure what else you'd like supplied? They give further context to the right of way (which is not a public right of way) showed on the link you provided https://www.landdirect.ie/maptopdf/generatePDF_LD_PUBLIC.aspx?xBL=531216.73833161&yBL=672473.88712998&xTR=532698.40796161&yTR=673660.5457533. You're welcome to check with Clare County Council it's a right of way for the previous owner Mary Fary to visit her descendents in the graveyard. Not really relevant to the main page as a source hence replying and posting to your "public right of way" talk comment here. Kellycrak88 (talk) 22:08, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you're showing me a photo of computer screens uploaded to some dodgy image hosting site, that make no mention of a right of way at all, let alone that the right of way only exists for one named individual... Are you the property owner, or closely associated with the owner? In which case, you should be aware of our WP:COI policy. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:26, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not the property owner. No conflict of interest giving context to your talk comment "Public right of way" which is factually incorrect. Click on the image and it will full screen zoom, then scroll down and it says "The right of way and such other easements as specified in the Instrument Number D2016LR131622J in favour of Mary Farry the registered owner(s) of the property comprised in folio CE8428, her heirs, assigns and others as specified therein affecting the part of the property show coloured yellow on Plan DDU33 of the Registry Map." > Then scroll down further and the image shows in yellow the right of way matching the link you provided. Kellycrak88 (talk) 22:37, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
hi @Bastun you reversed my changes to the main page? Public right of way needs to be removed or clarified with all the details of it being a right of way for Mary Fary as per the evidence I provided you (which I think is unnecessary detail for the an encyclopaedia article, best if the sentence is removed) Kellycrak88 (talk) 12:18, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did. Your assertion is contradicted by the reference and footnote already in the article, which are actual government websites, rather than a photo of a computer screen. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 19:20, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The deeds are not available online through a public internet link hence I provided you the evidence here for your perusal, as I already mentioned "The right of way you are referring to is not a public right of way — if you check the document you’ve referenced it says right of way, not public right of way". Again, not sure what else you'd like supplied? As mentioned, you're welcome to check with Clare County Council who will clarify for you. In the meantime it's best the sentence is removed from an encyclopaedia article. If you continue to disagree please kindly explain. Kellycrak88 (talk) 19:40, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See the reference and footnote. Stop removing them. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 21:40, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stop removing referenced content. If you have an actual reference that isn't a screenshot, feel free to discuss. And do not engage in WP:NPA in your edit summaries! BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:55, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

as requested here is a public link from the Clare County Council web site on Public Rights of Way: https://www.clarecoco.ie/services/planning/ccdp2017-2023/rptsubmissions/chief-executive-s-report-to-the-elected-members-on-submissions-received-on-public-rights-of-way-part-iii-of-iii-23019.pdf page 6 — "Clare County Council is unable to include the preservation of a designated public right of way at Newhall, Ennis, although public access is permitted to Killone Abbey and Graveyard" — the yellow line on landdirect.ie and the yellow line matching the deeds (link above) is a private right of way, not public right of way. Although public access is not a problem it just needs to be arranged with the Estate owners who are very friendly and I understand they are developing more access. Kellycrak88 (talk) 15:53, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bastun STOP putting back on the page that there is a public right of way, you have obviously have an agenda in way of the facts! Kellycrak88 (talk) 20:39, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am restoring referenced content. You are removing referenced content. The link you included above contains many "recommendations" from the CEO - that's all. I am going to restore the referenced content. If you want to remove it, you will need to find a source stating that on such and such a date, the public right of way was extinguished. And I would like to remind you that removing the status quo content - especially while omitting to say what you're doing with a fake edit summary - is edit warring. Don't do that while a discussion is ongoing. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 21:07, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

you are ignoring facts and evidence provided - as I already said an encyclopedia article is not the place for contention, you are referring to referenced content on landdirect.ie which says RIGHT OF WAY -- not public right of way -- I've provided you the deeds proving it's a private right of way and the position from Clare County Council stating there is no public right of way. You are ignoring the facts Sir. There is NO public right of way and there never has been a public right of way through Newhall. There is an ancient public right of way through ballybeg forrest the pilgrims path that connects to Clare Abbey but as you can see in the same document Clare County Council didn't want to restore it. I already have encouraged you to contact Clare County Council for yourself but your continued stance obviously is proving your bias. Kellycrak88 (talk) 21:23, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So now its your turn we're switching this around, I challenge you to provide proof that there is or has ever been a public right of way through Newhall, until you provide me proof the contentious sentence is bering removed from this article. Landdirect.ie showing a (private) right of way matching the deeds is not proof. Kellycrak88 (talk) 21:47, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are edit warring. That is against policy and will get you blocked. You have not provided evidence - you have posted pictures of screenshots hosted on a dodgy image hosting site; and linked to a report containing CEO recommendations, with no proof a right of way was extinguished. No, I won't contact Clare County Council. That's WP:OR. I don't have a "bias" - stop accusing me of it. I am restoring referenced content, originally added by another user, WikiAviator. Another user, Missimack, has also written about the public right of way - so you're also at odds with WP:CON. I invite you now to cop on, follow the WP:BRD process, and self-revert, until you have actual evidence that a right of way was extinguished. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:07, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't read the document it's a Chief Executive’s Report on Public Rights of Way this is the position of Clare County Council. I will therefore quote page 6 for you (note Mr. Farry is the previous owner of Newhall) on other pages you can read about the ancient Pilgrim's path through ballybeg forrest which is not through Newhall the Landdirect.ie link you provided:
This submission responds to a Notice served under Section 14(1) of the Planning & Development
Act 2000 as amended, which was issued to the landowner’s above on 09/12/2015 and which proposes the preservation of a right of way over their lands at Newhall, Ennis. The landowner’s advise that they will strongly resist the proposal to declare the route a public right of way in the County Development Plan 2017-2023.
The landowner’s state that there was never a right of way over these lands. They advise that there is a burial ground and national monument on their lands to which they have had to restrict access to the public on account of anti-social behaviour, uncontrolled dogs, dumping and trespassing onto their private property. Mr. Farry has also sought legal opinion on this matter and advises that he will appeal any attempts to the proposal.
Chief Executive’s Response:
I wish to thank the authors for their submission and I acknowledge their concerns regarding the designation. I am aware that the legislation and case law in relation to public rights of way clearly states that:
• There must be actual dedication by the landowner to the public use of the route in question or there must be sufficient evidence to show that such a dedication was intended;
• A public right of way must be open to the public and not just a class of persons or limited number of the public;
• A public right of way must start in and finish in a public area (i.e. it cannot terminate in private property);
• A public right of way cannot be obtained by stealth, by force or by licence i.e. it must be a route to which the public have a right of access as a right not by way of permission. Based on the foregoing, and having regard to timeframes at this stage of the County Development Plan process, Clare County Council is unable to include the preservation of a designated public right of way at Newhall, Ennis, although public access is permitted to Killone Abbey and Graveyard.
Chief Executive’s Recommendation
I recommend that Clare County Council does not preserve a public right of way at Newhall, Ennis. Kellycrak88 (talk) 23:20, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There never has been a public right of way through Newhall. You are ignoring evidence, so you leave me no choice but to follow a dispute process Kellycrak88 (talk) 23:26, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe at this stage you could declare your actual WP:COI - what, exactly, is your connection to this land? Assertions by the owners are just that - assertions. People trying to extinguish a public right of way literally have to make that assertion. What you've presented from Clare CC is - as stated - a recommendation. Not a decision, a judgement, a ruling or anything of the kind. A recommendation. That's all. "I recommend that Clare CC does not preserve a public right of way..." certainly suggests that there is a public right of way in existence (or was, at the time of writing), that the CEO does not wish to maintain. In the meantime, we have a valid reference from a government agency, landdirect.ie, indicating a right of way.
And... you've ignored completely what I said about edit-warring, WP:BRD, consensus, and the status quo. Please restore the status quo version, and we can discuss further. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:42, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
let's take your original quote at the top of this thread so we know your true agenda:
There's been some bad faith edits by unregistered accounts (presumably the land owners) denying that there is public right of way to the abbey. Anyone can check the map on www.landdirect.ie to see that there is in fact a public right of way. Very disappointing to see someone try to take advantage of Wikipedia like this. One to watch out for. Missimack (talk) 13:01, 9 July 2023
Seems to have been addressed now. I spend a while on landdirect.ie earlier but couldn't find how to get a URL for a particular area/map. WikiAviator managed it, though! I have the page on my watchlist now, will watch out for future reversions by disgruntled landowners... ;-) BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:38, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear those unregistered edits were not mine AND as already stated I am not the owner there is no conflict of interest in correcting inaccurate statements. I am a local who has known these lands my entire life.
We are going around in circles as I keep having to repeat myself to you.
The link you provided for landdirect.ie https://www.landdirect.ie/maptopdf/generatePDF_LD_PUBLIC.aspx?xBL=531216.73833161&yBL=672473.88712998&xTR=532698.40796161&yTR=673660.5457533 shows a (private) right of way through Newhall as proven in the deeds image https://ibb.co/VT2M9Qx matching yellow line.
Landdirect.ie does not show a public right of way. So it is not evidence for a public right of way.
The Clare County Council report is their public right of way position, the fact that you choose to ignore a public link from Clare County Council shows your motive. You can write or call them up if you wish but you won't because that will disprove your point. So if this continues I will do that myself and procure a letter to the moderators when I report you, as clearly you are ignoring evidence provided as you have a biased agenda. Kellycrak88 (talk) 11:06, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've already explained why your screenshot of something hosted on a dodgy website is not a reliable source, and pointed you at our no original research policy, which would prevent me contacting Clare CC. And you're again indulging in personal attacks? The Administrator's Noticeboard is right here. I look forward to the notification that you've opened a case there. In the meantime, I am restoring the absolutely valid referenced content, as you are refusing to do so. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The other statement that is factually incorrect is that Killone Abbey is owned by the Office of Public Works.
https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/question/2015-06-16/296/
direct quote from the Minister of State at the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform:
"Killone Abbey is not in State ownership but is in the Guardianship of the Commissioners of Public Works. Public access to this site is therefore currently at the discretion of the owner. Given that a private landholding is in question, the erection of a sign would need the approval of the owner." Kellycrak88 (talk) 12:42, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bastun I apologise for my brashness and there is no personal attack or hard feelings intended, but as we now have the Irish Government minister responsible for the matter quoted saying Killone Abbey is not state owned and public access requires discretion of the owner -- considering all the evidence, will you please finally remove the false statement? Kellycrak88 (talk) 13:03, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a lawyer, so am unclear as to the actual difference between "State ownership" and "in the Guardianship of Commissioners of Public Works", but regardless, you seem to have missed the rest of that reply, where the minister goes on to state "(The OPW) is contacting the separate owners seeking agreement to proceed." and I fail to see how or why the OPW would want to erect signage to a building, site or ruin to which the public does not have access. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/question/2015-06-16/296/ - The minister's quote is in 2015
https://www.clarecoco.ie/services/planning/ccdp2017-2023/rptsubmissions/chief-executive-s-report-to-the-elected-members-on-submissions-received-on-public-rights-of-way-part-iii-of-iii-23019.pdf -- - a year later in 2016 - at Clare County Council there was decision not to install a public right of way (as part of development planning 2017-2023)
You don't have to be a lawyer to understand what the minister is saying.
The minister says Killone Abbey is NOT state owned and access to site requires the owner's permission. Yes it's a national monument under the Guardianship of the Commissioners of Public Works but that just means it's a protected site.
@Bastun just because you don't agree shouldn't be reason to keep a false statement on an encyclopedia article
Will you remove the sentence? Kellycrak88 (talk) 16:06, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, several things. First, conflict of interest. You state you are not the owner - fair enough - but you also state above that you are a local, and therefore you do have a COI. I mean, in the last document you referred to, several locals all put in submissions against a public right of way, because of, inter alia, "burglaries". (Vampires can't cross running water, burglars can only use public rights of way. It is known.) You should have declared this COI at the beginning. For the record, I have never knowingly been to Killone and have only been to Ennis a handful of times in my life.

Second, we work on the principle of verifiability. If something can be reliably sourced to secondary sources, it can be included. When we have sources, we can state what's in them. That includes stating - as we do - what's backed by the landdirect.ie reference. It can also include a statement that in 2016, the CEO of Clare CC stated "Clare County Council is unable to include the preservation of a designated public right of way at Newhall, Ennis, although public access is permitted to Killone Abbey and Graveyard," and recommended that Clare CC "does not preserve a public right of way at Newhall, Ennis". Similarly, we can also include the assertion by one "It is also submitted by the author that Killone Abbey is accessible by way of an alternative route on which there is no restriction on the rights of the wider public to access the particular site." I have added that content and reference. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:10, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bastun I am not hiding anything. It is not a conflict of interest being a local it just means I know more about the situation than you do. Furthermore I also do have ancestors buried in the graveyard. Regarding your allegation that my name is in the document objecting to a proposed public right of way, my name is NOT there, I found the article from a google search.
What I do object to is false (and proven inaccurate) statements being purported by wikipedia keyboard warriors.
Wikipedia is not the place for contention and the sentence should really be deleted (it is an encyclopaedia article after all).
I see you’ve edited the article again choosing a biased stance instead of correctly quoting the minister that Killone Abbey is not state owned, that there is no public right of way and access is at the discretion of the owners although the estate owners do allow access.
The owners have always allowed access to respectful visitors (they're very welcome!) this has never been an issue, locals know this.
The landdirect.ie link is still referenced - a page which does not say public right of way but your edits on the page claim so purporting this phoney agenda. Kellycrak88 (talk) 13:23, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yet more personal attacks! I made no such allegation whatsoever! And yesterday I changed the article to read "guardianship is vested in the OPW", rather than the previous "ownership is vested in the OPW." I'm done, next personal attack or accusation of bad faith, and it's WP:AN/I. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:19, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re-read your comment, I am simply responding to your implied accusation as anyone reading could believe so.. I am not personally attacking you, I am only stating the facts. Kellycrak88 (talk) 14:32, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bastun just because you don't like the facts (again not attacking you) shouldn't be a reason to keep a false statement on the page Kellycrak88 (talk) 14:40, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
More proof: https://postimg.cc/67vWgJQb
Email response from Clare County Council a query made by Ennis resident (again not me) can be verified by joining the The Real Ennis Town Forum private facebook group and searching for Killone. Quoted as follows:
Killone Abbey is in the Guardianship of the Commissioners of Public Works ( OPW ) and is not in state ownership.
Public access to both the Abbey and the adjoining Burial Ground is provided at discretion of the landowner.
There is no public Right of Way.
There hasn't been any issue with animals getting into the Burial Ground in recent times but this office will keep the matter under review.
Regards,
@Bastun for the love of god will you please acquiesce and agree to the contentious sentence being removed? Kellycrak88 (talk) 18:01, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Proof"?! Are you actually for real?! Let me get this straight - a purported screenshot uploaded to a dodgy image hosting site, allegedly taken from a private facebook group, where someone has, what, supposedly re-posted an email from someone in the council is your evidence? It's unsigned. There's no email address. Would you please cop on, and actually read WP:V and WP:RS. I don't know what it is you're trying to prove, but nothing is going in the article without Reliable Secondary Sources, and material that's backed by reliable secondary sources isn't being removed. WP:DROPTHESTICK... BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 19:33, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
this is petty behaviour @Bastun read what I said "can be verified by joining the The Real Ennis Town Forum private facebook group and searching for Killone" but of course you won't. I am not asking for the images above to be used as referenced sources, the sentence should to be removed from the article. It's unbelievable in light of everything I've provided you are still insisting there is a public right of way and you've provided no evidence. I'm not sure how I can reach consensus with you. As a last ditch effort on my part I will email Clare County Council myself and provide you the image reply (yes to an image hosting site) will that settle it? If you say no, then this matter will have to be escalated. Kellycrak88 (talk) 19:48, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. Now, would you please either read WP:RS and WP:OR (second or third request at this stage, I believe!); or, failing that, just go ahead and open a case at WP:AN/I? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 20:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
for anyone else reading if you go to facebook in the comments the TD is there and here is a comment and I quote:
There really isn't much to debate here:
A: The access to the abbey is privately owned
B: To use this access without permission is trespass
C: If you want to access it anyway, either illegally enter and hedge your bets you won't be caught, or contact the landowner and ask for permission.
Really there is not much more that can be said! The original poster must decide for themselves what they want to do - enter illegally or seek permission
https://share.icloud.com/photos/076uieaEMZO-vKUQN1T1Xyx-g my icloud sharing link this time @Bastun so it's not a dodgy image hosting site... ;-) note you need to double click on the image at the bottom to expand it
@Bastun yes unfortunate as it is, you're unwilling to see reason and reach consensus with me, therefore I will dedicate time this weekend to follow a dispute process - as the truth always prevails! Kellycrak88 (talk) 21:05, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
sorry typo correct link: https://share.icloud.com/photos/0f3VuPINWRUmZbp-GqzCVW3UA Kellycrak88 (talk) 21:22, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

edits to clarify ownership[edit]

Hi there, I've read through the above dispute and while I think it got off on the wrong foot, I've read the sources and it is clear that this is indeed located on private property, as stated at this link: [1]. Bastun, thank you for making an effort to include the sources that came up in the discussion above. I've removed most of those quotes, since I find they are more likely to be confusing than helpful to readers. Instead I just left a short sentence about how access is at the discretion of the current owners. -- asilvering (talk) 01:03, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've partially reverted. Yes, the abbey is "landlocked" by Newhall Estate, but you removed the fact that guardianship of the abbey and site is vested in the Commissioners of the OPW, not the owners of the estate, and the existence of a right-of-way - public or otherwise - is apparently a fact. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:36, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bastun you are continuing to edit war and include non-enclopedic statements that I agree with @Asilvering confuses readers, I have not edited the page since you added the warning to my talk page, @Bastun with all due respect I have nothing against you, but you need to step aside, as I have, and let other editors with a neutral point of view take charge. The ref link has a government minister asked in parliament about Killone Abbey he says Killone Abbey is not state owned and public access requires discretion of the owner. Guardianship just means it's a protected site, Killone Abbey is privately owned as per the evidence. Stating there is a (private) right of way on an enclopedic page makes no sense and will confuse. Kellycrak88 (talk) 12:03, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You need to back off and listen to your mentor. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:18, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bastun, that isn't correct, though. That's why I removed it. It is Clare Abbey that is landlocked. Killone Abbey is not owned by the state, inside its walls or otherwise. -- asilvering (talk) 17:29, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've not referred to Clare Abbey at all. Re Killone Abbey, the deputy said "Killone Abbey is not in State ownership but is in the Guardianship of the Commissioners of Public Works." That's reflected in the text I restored, with reference (#6). (The Commissioners are the officers legally in charge of the Office of Public Works.) BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 18:47, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You referred to "landlocked", which was said about Clare and not about Killone, so I don't think it was strange to assume you had confused the two. Regarding the text you've restored, I've left in this bit about the guardianship, although I do still think it is likely to mislead readers about who owns the land. I've reworded the paragraph a bit to try to avoid the problem. But I've removed the rest of the paragraph, which is really quite unnecessarily confusing to readers. -- asilvering (talk) 19:19, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

another source[edit]

The three comments following this one have been copied over from my talk page, to centralize discussion. -- asilvering (talk) 00:21, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, the situation is more complicated (item 6, no. 1). The Banner talk 23:19, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@The Banner Thank you for providing the link, the submitted motion by J Flynn incorrectly stated that the "council have maintained this road in the past and a public right of way that has existed for centuries"
Betty Devanny, the Administrative Officer, replied correcting the submission saying:
"Killone graveyard is located on the grounds of Killone Abbey and is accessed via a roadway through a private landholding – Newhall Estate. The graveyard and the abbey are registered in the folio of the landowner. This property has changed ownership since July 2016 and is now registered in the name of the new landowner.
There is a gate and pedestrian access to this burial ground. The land surrounding the abbey and the graveyard is farming land and livestock were on the land up to the time of the change of ownership.
The previous landowner maintained this access road in the past and it may have received previous funding from Clare County Council under a local improvement scheme which facilitated works on non public roads.
Killone Abbey and Killone Graveyard are recorded monuments and are afforded protection under national monuments legislation. The OPW maintain Killone Abbey. The previous landowner has facilitated access to the burial ground and it is anticipated that this will continue with the new landowner.
Members requested follow up with the new landowner on this matter."
As I said in the full discussion here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Killone_Abbey access is not a problem with permission and anyone that has descendants buried in Killone can make arrangements with the Estate owners. Kellycrak88 (talk) 00:08, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
key point made here was "the graveyard and the abbey are registered in the folio of the landowner" which means privately owned, but a protected site under national monuments legislation Kellycrak88 (talk) 00:18, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
and they clearly state it's a non public road so that should further settle the public right of way argument Kellycrak88 (talk) 00:24, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@The Banner, I don't think this is any more complicated. The first paragraph is the motion: the councillors assert that a public right of way has existed for centuries. It is immediately followed by the response, which makes it clear that the councillors are incorrect, that there is no public right of way, and that they will follow up with the landholder to see if they will continue facilitating access. -- asilvering (talk) 00:27, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With a proposal to buy the road. The Banner talk 00:56, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
nope:
The OPW maintain Killone Abbey. The previous landowner has facilitated access to the burial ground and it is anticipated that this will continue with the new landowner.
Members requested follow up with the new landowner on this matter.
Kellycrak88 (talk) 11:13, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just read the source, they requested a CPO of the road. The Banner talk 12:11, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've read it, the request from 7 years ago was submitted by the councillor who also stated incorrect facts that was clarified in the response, as far as I am aware there has been no purchase or proposal to purchase by the council if you have evidence to contrary please feel free to provide - not to mention that the official Newhall Estate web site www.newhall.ie states: "Please note there has never been a public right of way through Newhall, this is a private estate and operating farm, anyone with relatives buried in the graveyard are most welcome to get in contact for access" Kellycrak88 (talk) 12:18, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You do not have reliable, independent sources? The Banner talk 14:05, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
as I said, if you have evidence to contrary please feel free to provide Kellycrak88 (talk) 14:36, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I said: you do not have reliable, independent sources? The Banner talk 14:44, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@The Banner, all the sources in this dispute are primary sources. If there are serious questions about whether the primary sources are accurate, we shouldn't be using them at all - as in, we should make no reference to right of way in the article. I've removed the mention of access and renamed that section to "Status". The two sentences I left there are the facts that do not appear to be in dispute, ie: that the guardianship is in OPW, and that the land is part of Newhall Estate. @Kellycrak88, does this satisfy your concerns? In general it is not common for wikipedia articles to include information on how to get to a site, what its operating hours are, etc, so while I agree that it would be wrong to say there is a public right of way, I do not feel that there is a major misinformation problem if we simply say nothing. -- asilvering (talk) 20:37, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll go with the consensus if everyone wants it in there but my preference would be to remove the Status section as national monument and guardianship of OPW leads readers to believe it's a public site when it's for protecting heritage sites. The Killone page is a civil parish page so I think it shouldn't mention these contentious points about Killone Abbey but I believe there is consensus on the current text on the page although I'm not a fan of it being there: "The graveyard and abbey are privately owned, part of Newhall Estate, and as protected sites under national monument legislation, guardianship is vested in the Office of Public Works. As it is private land, access is available with the owner's permission." Kellycrak88 (talk) 10:51, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why remove the sourced info about the guardianship? It is a fact and does not say or suggest anything about accessibility. The Banner talk 11:05, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
my reason is above (it's confusing as it leads readers to believe it's a public site) but as guardianship is a fact I will go with agreed consensus if you guys want it in there Kellycrak88 (talk) 11:08, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Killone_Abbey&oldid=1223474538"